The closest well-known precedent to the 9/11 attacks I can think of is the 8 Nazi spies/saboteurs inserted by submarine during WW2. I believe they were all executed after some kind of military tribunal, but I haven't looked it up. Any opinions?

Of course, this is a wholly theoretical question because none of them survived, but I can't think of a reason to object to either the process or the result of the saboteur case being applied here.

The situation of the Gitmo detainees is entirely different. I can't comprehend any argument that says we can invade another country, capture anonymous, nonofficial, non-uniformed, complete strangers for no particular reason, and detain them indefinitely without any process whatsoever, even a military tribunal.

If we went into Somalia to capture pirates, we would have grounds to treat them as international criminals and sentence them as we wish, along with anyone who resisted us. Somali resisters (army, for example, if they had one and the government was harboring the pirates) would deserve a speedy trial to determine whether they were following orders, were defending their homes or thought they were, or were siding with the pirates out of self-interest related to crimes of piracy.

In short, GC or no GC, if criminals and pirates deserve a speedy and fair trial even if it leads to execution, relatively innocent bystanders deserve one even more, and no amount of sophistry can obscure this.

You've made no attempt to show that the GCs don't cover "terrorism." You simply stated it.

Care to address that? The whole argument against your position is that the administration tried to invent a new category to circumvent the GCs.

The GCs don't mention cannibalistic Canadians, do they? New category!

I never said what you say I said. Please, everyone, can we at least agree that there is a difference between "Convention" and "Conventions"? Everyone is protected under Article 3, okay?

Anyone who says that terrorism suspects are POWs, thereby implicitly admits that the war on terror is a war. I don't admit that, I think that terrorism should be fought with police action, not cluster bombs. Terrorists are criminals, not soldiers.

By the way giving criminal defendant status to detainees protects them much better than POW status, inasmuch as it gives them the right to their day in court. If Guantanamo prisoners had been treated as criminals, most of them would have been freed within weeks of their detention. POW status is a terrible thing in a war that, by definition, can never end.

A DOJ form a barbershop quartet with Canadian hockey ice skaters,

and the black puck hit shins, shoulders, forehead, ears, and fat lips.

The body is black, red, blue, and white. What a beautiful UT theatre.

I try in vain to restrain my mimi from banging the keyboard gadget.

Orville H. Larson always reminds me of the excellent bowl of wheat.

Kretchschmer's original toasted Wheat Germ is a source of folic acid.

Whenever it hurts inside a human heart do not smoke a Cuban cigar.

If so you: Remember to light the right end. Join barber shop quartet.

Sing boondocks blues. Hum The Star Spangled Banner in O Acapulco.

O, say can you see, by the dawns early light, the banner we smoked?

huh. Perhaps all depressed barbers at the DOJ can request sideburns?

Confusion, delusion, and a demented lawyer is not Good Celery! goof.

That's exactly what you said:

That convention was not designed to cover a war-on-terror situation.

Because my wife admits she never climaxed,

she run off with dang Jebbie? No. I just silly.

Hans B. You best never get a pierced bellies.

oops. @ 13th visit to therapist, ay' show me.

Oho. Ay a secrets tattoo of a thigh butterfly.

You've admitted that wiping out a city because someone tried to kill you is a disproportionate response. What you don't seem to understand is that wiping out civilians en masse is always a disproportionate response.

The only exception to the plain fact that a nuclear assault is a war crime is if you target a missile facility with tactical nukes out of necessity, and a small number of civilian deaths are unavoidable.

Targeting a city with strategic nukes is not allowed, regardless of the attacks you have suffered---yes, even if you are only trying to exact revenge. The "laws" of proportionality don't allow you to murder millions of innocents just because your enemy murdered millions of your innocents. That's just obvious. They do allow you to use WMDs if your enemy did, but they don't allow their blatant abuse.

(That's why the US developed more precise, smaller missiles/warheads, so they could target silos closer to population centers than the Russians could.)

~Hidden Tattoo of two bald eagles.

The Jewish lawyers are very lovable.

A Orthodox Jew worried over a meal.

It taste too delicious to be true kosher.

In therapy the client removed all mascara.

After the session the lawyer became a bar waitress.

The tattoo on the DOJs was the high school mascot.

Sorry I reacted a bit too fast. I think Article 3 applies in all cases, except when a country admits that there is no war, in that case it must apply ordinary criminal legislation. The point about the new category is that in cases of international conflict, there may be categories other than armed forces, POWs and civilians, which were not envisaged in 1949. But personally I would be quite happy if countries would treat terrorism as a criminal question, not as an unending war.

Well, I think we're in agreement on that.

I didn't follow your argument regarding Holder though.

What you are describing is why the 1977 Additional Protocols were added.

However, if you read the preamble and Article 1 of the 2nd additional protocol, you will find:

Recalling that, in cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience,

and in Article 1,

This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949

Notice that first off, the statement is made that with respect to the Conventions, there is a "10th amendment" attitude to err on the side of humanity. Notice in the first article, the protocols are seen as developing the original documents. The first additional protocol supplements Article 2, the second supplements Article 1. But there is the assumption that they just develop Article 3.

The commentary from 1949 forward all indicates that there is no intention that there be situations where no protections apply. That, like I was saying, was an invention of the neocon/sovereigntist people, and it began the gradual pulling away from international humanitarian and human rights law by the U.S. for which the Reagan Revolutionaries from 1985 to the present are largely responsible.

But the reason for citing Vienna is that the U.S. has wanted to have it both ways. It wants to champion new human rights law, and even shepherd through new treaties, and wants the prestige of being considered a human rights "beacon" but then balks at ratification, or, in the case of the Rome Statute, even removes its signature so it won't face any consequences.

My personal opinion is that some of that results from a deep set belief by Reaganite Republicans that laws passed under Democrats are not required to be obeyed somehow, or should be circumvented. Long history with that, from a dual mindset on domestic social laws (Prop 8 is settled law the minute it passes, Roe v. Wade is not, no matter how long it's been in effect), to international treaties. There is also a mindset, most succinctly expressed by George W. Bush when he says "The U.S. does not torture", that the U.S. is a beacon of human rights by birthright and definition, rather than by behavior.

Vienna makes it clear what should be done if the U.S. does not want to obey the additional protocols: It should denounce them, and then wait it's one year (1st protocol) or six months (2nd protocol) to be out. But then it has to state its renunciation of humanitarianism, as they say, "In front of god and everybody". The hypocrisy of wanting the mantle without the behavior is very clear. And the racism involved with not ratifying them is very clear, too. Maybe our first post-racial president can get them ratified and end these shenanigans once and for all.